malazanfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Marl Karx
Welcome Welcome to the Malazan Wiki, and thanks for your edit to the Talk:Warren page. There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements. :Need help? The is a useful page, here you can read about how to successfully do the most common tasks on the wiki. :Questions? You can ask at the or on the "discussion" page associated with each article, or post a message on my talk page. :Want to talk Malazan stuff? We try to keep discussion here related to the task at hand: building a great wiki. There are already great Malazan discussion communities such as the Malazan Empire forums, the Malazan subreddit or the Malazan Art Guild and you would be wise to join at least one of them – most of us are already there too. We are happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you! :ArchieVist (talk) 00:02, November 16, 2016 (UTC) Welcome Hi, Marl Karx. Glad to see you are continuing to add new material to The Abyss page. It looks like you figured out the references too. We're always happy to see new people adding to the wiki. Let me know if I can be of any assistance!--ArchieVist (talk) 01:20, November 18, 2016 (UTC) Book numbers in references Hey, MK. You can mostly leave out Book numbers in the references. In all but one case just the chapter number will do because it is a unique number. The only exception is Return of the Crimson Guard which starts the chapter numbering over again in each book (i.e. Book 1 Chapter 1, Book 2 Chapter 1, etc). One less thing to type, right?--ArchieVist (talk) 17:14, November 19, 2016 (UTC) Welcome to the Wiki :) Hi Marl Karx (interesting name), great to be able to welcome you as a new editor here. I had a look at the recent edits for the Abyss page - from those it seems to me that the Abyss is a Warren after all. It still says that it is not a Warren in the intro. Should that be changed? I must admit, the magic system is not my strongest point. Hope you'll have spare time to carry on editing! Have fun :) Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 20:04, November 19, 2016 (UTC) Abyss Conundrum Good idea Marl - whether he will answer it... that is another question! If the Abyss does not fit the current definition we have on our Warren page then we need to make sure that we reflect that somehow. Looking at the Warren page... the classic term 'Warren' seems to be based on human perception. Seems to me that as the term is mostly coined by humans and if they name the Abyss a Warren when they are using it, then it could be described as such. The point then needs to be made that those realms variously described as Warrens by magic users differ from each other and that in the case of the Abyss, it is not a Warren in the same sense as for example Mockra. Looking at some of the other definitions... 'The Warrens were the blood streams of K'rul.' 'Each warren was aspected to an Eleint by K'rul when he created the warrens.' Do those two apply to the Abyss? If yes, then probably the overall answer to our question is yes. I suggest that we either add a sub-category to the main Warren page or if in the mind of readers, the term Warren is too closely linked with 'Warren = usable to perform magic with', we create a new page and category specific for any Warren/realm which does not conform to this perception. It could be called something like 'Warren (exceptions or non-regular/aberrations, etc.)' for example. PS: we don't normally edit user talk pages other than our own, unless the formatting isn't working with a specific interface. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 13:34, November 20, 2016 (UTC) : That's a good idea, now that I think of it the Imperial Warren is only used for travel as far as I remember as well. The only issue I see is that no known dragon is aspected to the Abyss (unless somehow Otataral and the Abyss are linked), which is probably why the page said it was not a warren; but there isn't a dragon for the Imperial Warren either, and neither are there dragons for elder warrens. Perhaps, the same way you were thinking about using a symbol to distinguish persons from the Glossary in the extended DP for tCG, we could add the Abyss to the list of warrens and place a symbol before the Imperial Warren and the Abyss to denote that they are usable only for travel as far as it is known. This would save the time of re-arranging all of the warrens and creating a new section. Ж Might work, it's easily distinguishable and since it's not in the insert menu it will probably not be used in any future symbol adding projects on other pages, which would avoid confusion. Marl Karx (talk) 14:02, November 20, 2016 (UTC) I had forgotten about the Imperial Warren, Marl, but of course, same thing. As it has Warren in its name, the question has not even been considered. In a way, there is maybe our answer. Creating another header is easy enough. We also have to remember that what the human magic users think and what someone like K'rul knows about the Warrens may be poles apart. Again, something to consider in how we bring that across. I'll take a look at the Warren page in a moment and see if I can re-arrange it a bit so that it better reflects the variety in how characters use it, refer to it, think of it and what might be its true nature. If you could take a look once I have done that and see what you think still needs changing, that would be really useful. If you post any reply to this comment on my talk page, that will generate a notification so I know to check. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 14:31, November 20, 2016 (UTC) Have now reorganised the Warren page. See if you think it needs still more changes. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 15:51, November 20, 2016 (UTC) : It looks good. I just changed "mode to travel" to "means of travel". Should I start going around and changing warren to Warren in articles? I've been adding reference links, while I'm doing so I can start changing Warren as well. Marl Karx (talk) 17:06, November 20, 2016 (UTC) Yes, please. As the word is always capitalised in the books, we really should do the same. It isn't of major consequence as it does not distort the meaning of the info but in the interest of continuity, it would be a good idea. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 17:20, November 20, 2016 (UTC)